tv Inside Politics With John King CNN May 18, 2021 9:00am-10:00am PDT
>> okay, when you employ a car in a manner that puts officers' lives in danger, that is a threat. and i don't care what direction you're going. forward, backward, sideways, i don't care if you're stationary, and neither do our courts and our case law. yes, sir. >> i'm just wondering, if you had any interviews with these deputies, did they express their fear in their interview where they're saying, yeah, i thought i could get run over, did they ever say anything -- some of that stuff. >> yes, they did, but not to me. i did not interview the officers. the -- state bureau of investigation did the interviews, and i read the reports. and yes, they all stated either they were afraid of being run over or they were afraid of their fellow officers being run over. yes, ma'am, and i'll get to you in just a second. >> you mentioned you can't use the court of public opinion in
making these decisions, it has to be based on the facts. yet you live in this community. this is your community. are you concerned at how this decision will be received? i mean, we can already hear protesters outside. we can assume that it will not be received well. is that a concern? >> so i believe that there will be folks who are not happy with this decision. when i was appointed, the district attorney in 2013, and then ran for this position in 2014, and ran for this position in 2018, i had a full understanding of what the responsibilities and duties of the district attorney are. i make -- sometimes i make popular decisions. such as charging the four inmates in pasquotank county with capital murder. i signed up for all of them, the popular ones and the unpopular ones. >> the four videos you showed us, were they included among the
videos that the family saw. >> yes, the family actually saw a longer version of the four. i did not include the portions where law enforcement removed mr. brown from the car. i did not think that there was any journalistic need for that. it's clearly -- he's clearly in a lifeless position. yes, sir, in the back. >> have you been in touch with the fbi about their investigation? >> no, sir, i have not. the fbi sent a letter to my office very early on requesting the body cam videos. i believe -- well, i believe that -- i know that they have them. they did not get them from me. sorry, right here in the middle. >> driving toward an unmarked van that had a law enforcement officer in it while the officers were shooting toward brown's car. his car passed very close to the unmarked van, were the shots fired by the sheriff's deputies
ever put -- the officer in the unmarked van in danger? >> he's clearly in front of that car. the body cam, because of the lens, actually distorts the distance between the officers and the vehicle as the shooting. it's really not that far away. were they really in danger? no. were they in the path of bullets? yes. >> can you clarify which officer fired the fatal head shot which killed andrew brown and however that officer was at which angle. >> i do not know that. let me explain why. the bullet that was removed by dr. kelly from the back of andrew brown's head fragmented. so what that means, according to dr. kelly, is that the bullet was tumbling when it struck mr. brown. it was tumbling because it was knocked off its path either by a headrest, glass, or some other object inside the car.
when it tumbled and hit mr. brown in the back of the head, it then splintered into three pieces, making it impossible to determine from what weapon it was actually fired. now, we -- a metallurgic study could find that information out, but it wasn't relevant to my decision. >> you said before the intention was to arrest mr. brown, but in the 14 shell casings that were found, spent at the scene, is there any question in your mind to whether or not why deputies would shoot directly at someone's head in a vehicle rather than surrounding the vehicle to potentially stop the vehicle, and take someone in custody? if that was their intention. >> so once again i believe at this point we're discussing hypotheticals or theoreticals. mr. brown's vehicle showed several multiple shots into the
side of the vehicle. there is the one shot in the front windshield that came from sergeant meeds, there are several shots into the body of the vehicle itself from a very close distance. one could think that that was to disable the vehicle. was that question asked? it's not in the officers' notes, it's not in there about what they were trying to do other than extinguish a threat. >> would any of those officers' notes be in the information you're releasing today? >> no, ma'am, in that file, within my office, it will stay within my office. that is our policy. i do not release any files because they're not public record, and that is our stated policy here. i'm doing this only because of the obvious notoriety of this particular case. man in the back. >> so at what point did you determine he was using the vehicle as a weapon, was it when
the deputy's arm was on the hood of the car or when he put the car into drive? >> you're asking me at what point did i make that determination? >> yes. >> so once again, the standard of what i need to look at is what a reasonable officer on the scene would have perceived, not necessarily what district attorney andrew womble would perceive. i'm going to answer your question. the question is when do i think he employed vehicle as a deadly weapon. i believe he employed it as a deadly weapon the moment he did not respond to officers' commands to show them his hands and get out of the car. when he used the car in contravention of their commands, at that point he has demonstrated his willingness to use that vehicle in any manner he deems necessary to evade lawful arrest. >> i think for us in the
national, this case, especially timeline in the north carolina law regarding body camera, i think it's also fair to say that video evidence has changed law enforcement and how you're able to examine cases. i wanted to see your perspective of the north carolina law regarding the release of body cameras, was it useful for your office in this case, was it a useful law, would you like to see any changes? >> you know, i -- this was the first opportunity that i've had to deal with this particular body cam statute. for the purposes of the district attorney's office and what my duties are in all investigations, all criminal investigations, i found the statute to be very useful, very purposefully written, very useful. it gives an opportunity for anyone who's depicted to have an opportunity to view that. i think that is important. could that have been done earlier? possibly.
but once again, the statute dictates how petitions are to be filed and requests are to be filed and how they're supposed to be made. i'm not going to get into whether that was done early on and then the right manner in order to allow the sheriff to make that early disclosure to the family. but with respect to criminal investigations, my job -- and as i stated, it is of the highest importance. i have to protect the orderly administration of justice in all cases. and that's -- that's mass murders, that's whether it's law enforcement being investigated. that's sexual assault cases. that's breaking and entering and petty larceny. it doesn't matter. that is my job, and i take it very seriously. that's why i took the position i took with regard to this, and i will take it in every instance that involves body cameras or other law enforcement cameras. i want to see it. i want to conduct my investigation. i want it done correctly, without the taint, without the
possibility that other people have seen it and are now going to interject things that we cannot objectively verify again. i want that investigation done properly. >> i think some -- >> that protects everybody involved. not only victims, their families, but potentially the people charged. >> i take that statement as you don't necessarily want the sunlight to come into these events with the public -- not necessarily, but the public to see these raw events and make their own determinations. am i -- >> i'm not following. you're attributing something to me. what did you say? >> you may not necessarily want the sunlight to open up these, and these videos to be out in the public place before an individual like yourself has made a determination capability once they've done their investigation. am i attributing what you say wrong? >> i think that is correct. i brought it today for the
purposes of accountability and transparency. i think, as i said before, and i believe i said this at the hearing, you will get an opportunity to see it. public has a right to see it. our courts are open. our constitution says that the courts in this state are open. so in one of two ways, this would have been exposed. either i would have exposed it in a court while at trial, and you would have had to wait. or i can expose it today because i'm not bringing any criminal charges. i'll come back to you. >> can you clarify what deputies were hit, what part of their bodies were hit and whether any injuries were sustained. >> i cannot clarify whether any injuries were sustained. deputy lunsford, from the video it looks clear to me he's struck up the interleft side of his body. it cannot tell and it does not indicate in the statement whether the carrolled over his
foot. he clearly yells, you hear him yell when the handle is snatched out of his hand, he loses his balance. so -- >> he's struck during that -- >> that is correct, he's struck up the left side of his body and he moves his -- yes, and he moves his left leg out of the way and yes, his upper body is pulled across the hood of the car. >> physical contact with -- >> no, the second physical contact is when the car is moving forward, deputy lunsford puts out his left hand to brace himself and spins his left leg, again, up and around to get out of the way. i'll come back to this gentleman. >> mr. womble, you talked about the relationship with the attorneys for andrew brown's family, but you talk about the difficulty, you said you had to be careful, what did you mean by that? and with you admitting your job is difficult, you take on the tough cases, why not do more to try to reach out and communicate with those attorneys, because
they are speaking to the masses, if you will, but we're not hearing a lot from you. why not try to really spend some time with the attorneys, talk about that relationship and the problem that you say there is there. >> so we had a meeting very early, possibly the second day, maybe april 22nd with attorneys involved in the case. after i met with attorneys i -- they held a press conference and disclosed information that we had had a discussion. it was my belief that that conversation was going to be private, between us, and we were going to have a working relationship. once -- the rules of the game changed, and then i knew i had to protect the integrity of the investigation and keep the information that i had within my office. attorneys in this case who are purporting to represent the family aren't licensed to practice law in this state. so in order to represent someone
in the state of north carolina you must either be a licensed attorney in this state or admitted prohock vici, to my knowledge frp several attorneys who were purporting to represent members of the family who were not either one of those things, either licensed attorneys or admitted pro hoc. i have an obligation not to deal with someone represented by counsel without dealing with counsel. that put a barrier between myself and the brown family one that i think in all honesty, we could have done a better job to repair that relationship prior to this, and it is -- it's unfortunate and i don't like the way that played out. yes, sir. >> the sheriff's office has a use of force policy. shots fired at a moving vehicle involved, additional considerations at risk, when
feasible deputies should take reasonable steps to move out of the path of the vehicle instead of discharging the firearm at the vehicle or at its occupants. did that play a role in your decision today? >> i am aware of it, i have a copy of it, and no, it did not. in the back. >> i'm john king in washington, welcome, everybody, you've been watching for an hour plus now, simply remarkable press conference by the local prosecutor andrew womble in north carolina, reviewing and relaying his findings in the death nearly one month ago of andrew brown who was shot by sheriff's deputies executing a search and arrest warrant on him in elizabeth city, north carolina, the local prosecutor there detailing he says this shooting was justified because andrew brown tried to flee the scene in a car that he determined was a threat to the officers, therefore they had the right to use deadly force against him. we're going to show you in a moment the body camera released at this press conference. i want to go through some of the other headlines. the district attorney saying he did not tell the brown family
before he add this announcement today, that he was going to do this. he says there's some dysfunction in the relationship between the prosecutor's office and the brown family and the attorneys, at one point accusing some of the attorneys working with the brown family of misrepresenting facts in this case. the prosecutor also saying that the body camera footage he did show at the press briefing will not be made public. if media organizations want the footage they must go to the courts and ask for it. we do not know, i'm about to show you a minute long clip. i want to make clear, this was released by the prosecutor. we are not certain of its context. its full context. it does show some of the fatal encounter between sheriff's deputies, shows officers approaching mr. brown's car, shouting stop. the car then starts to drive away. and the officers begin to fire. we're going to show you this. it's just shy of a minute. just want to caution you, some of what you're about to see is quite graphic.
areva, the prosecutor was insistent, at times even defiant, saying even to the reporters in the room watching that video, he said, well, to them it appeared the car was trying to turn away from the officers, that mr. brown was trying to flee, but not to drive into the officers, that was the perspective of the people in the room watching the video. the prosecutor is quite defiant saying under the law the officers had a right to view that as a deadly threat, so the 14 shots fired in his view were justified. >> yeah, john, i had a real problem with many of the statements made by this district attorney. first of all, he relies on this 2014 supreme court case palmhoff and that case does involve allegations of fourth amendment violations, there were police officers who were shooting in a fleeing car, but that case involved a high speed chase. the supreme court focused a lot on the fact of the dangers associated with a high speed chase. that's not the facts involved in
this case in north carolina. we don't have a high speed chase. we have an individual who's sitting in his car, who is unarmed, who they're serving a search warrant on, and we know there's so many other alternatives, including the alternatives that are identified in the use -- the manual given to police officers in this state, which are like many police officers' manuals that prohibit or in many ways discourage police officers from shooting into a moving vehicle. and we heard this district attorney say he's aware of those police policies but yet he did not take them into consideration in making his determination. so lots of issues with his defiance, as you described it, i think that's appropriate, and his ultimate factual and legal determination about the justification for the shooting. >> so walk us through this from the perspective of someone who's risked his life in situations like this, the prosecutor was making the case they had witness testimony that mr. brown was a drug dealer, including in the
days up to the -- deciding to serve the arrest warrants. if they tried to serve them at night he did not come home that night, he stayed in a hotel instead, the prosecutor said, his car -- >> i have an issue with starting out that way, starting out about his past history. that's irrelevant to what happened in that moment. when we see that across the country and we see that in some of our cases with -- especially with a man of color, and i think that was inappropriate. to start off that way, to justify what happened. >> let's further down the path, i appreciate you bringing it up like that. the prosecutor is trying to make the case, drug dealer, bad guy, had a history of resisting arrest, therefore that's the mind-set of the officers when they arrive. as he starts to pull away, the prosecutor making the case they had every right to believe he's running away. he said they're trying to serve a search and arrest warrant, that they had no choice, that their obligation was to bring him into custody? is that their obligation. as long as they can get away from the car safely, might be messy, as long as they can get away from the car safely can an
officer not make the determination, let him go, we'll follow the car, why start shooting? >> there's so many things they haven't shown us but one statement he said is, the officer didn't have to get out the way. they have a choice. i think that when people are fleeing, if they create a risk to public safety, you know if it's a mass murder and those things, but in this case that is not -- he hasn't given us anything that would say that and so i think we need to learn more. when he says officers didn't have to move, well, that means they could have moved, possibly. >> right. and areva, the video does show it. i'm going to ask the control room. lo tee this up, let's play this through, i'll tell you when to stop. play it from the beginning and i'll tell you in a second. >> go, go, go.
>> stop. >> stop, stop, stop the car. >> stop right there. stop right there. so areva, come in on this point, there's no question there was one officer in the front of the vehicle who had to spin out of the way of the vehicle as it started to pull away. my question is more from that moment on, it went across the street and it ultimately hit, they started firing shots at that moment. there's a couple of questions here, areva, what is the responsibility of the officers at that moment, and number two, we do not have, because the prosecutor decided to release what he wanted to show us, we don't have the full context. we don't know if this is all of the camera footage. we don't know what other evidence the prosecutor has, and he says he has no obligation to release that to the public. >> you're right, john, this prosecutor has cherry picked the video to show us, to justify the point he wanted to make. that's so unfortunate.
what we have seen over the last several years in these high profile cases, is police chiefs, mayors coming forward and being transparent with the community, that's not what we're seeing today, what we're seeing today is a throwback to the prosecutor in the michael brown case in ferguson when we saw a very angry prosecuting attorney from the state of missouri coming forward, give a press conference, very defiant about his position in that case, not to charge the officers involved in the shooting of michael brown. and this is a throwback to that, and we move so much past that, in the last you know five years or so. so for this district attorney to show us that one minute of video clip but yet remain defiant in showing the public the entire video, and then accuse the lawyers of making misrepresentations, i think, is disingenuous on his part, and if he wants to clear up the evidence or the issue about what happened that day, he has the opportunity and the ability to show all the videotape and let the facts, you know, lay where they are. because this press conference, one minute, his defiant
statement, is not going to satisfy the public as it should not. >> and that conversation and those legal issues about getting full access and full transparency not only from the family's perspective, from the media perspective as well, will continue. i want to go back to, and i want to play the sound of what the prosecutor said, because in justifying the use of deadly force the prosecutor was saying that when mr. brown started to pull away in that car the car was a deadly weapon and at that point the officers had the reasonable right to conclude they were at risk and perhaps other members of the community were at risk and therefore they have the right to use deadly force. listen to how the prosecutor described his right under the law to make that judgment. >> when you employ a car in a manner that puts officers' lives in danger, that is a threat. and i don't care what direction you're going, forward, backward, sideways, i don't care if you're stationary and neither do our courts and our case law. >> i have a great deal of respect, captain johnson, for law enforcement officers who
have to respond to very difficult situations, but should that be the standard? should that be the standard? it doesn't matter whether the car is going 1 mile an hour, 2 miles an hour, whether there are five officers standing directly in front of it or the one or two officers who were in front of the car, we did see, they were at some risk, but they peeled off if you will as the car started going, what should the standard be? >> well, that is not the standard, that it doesn't matter if the car is sitting still or which way it's going. there are times when cars are used as a deadly weapon, but to say that there is no standard doesn't matter. i would disagree with that, and i will also agree with -- this press conference takes me back to 2014, and that's sad. i think that's unfair to the victim. that's unfair to the officers involved. but that's unfair to us in our country. >> areva, this is a process question more than a legal question, but it's an important one, a young man is dead, whatever your views on this case, a young man was killed in this episode. he may have -- they may have had
every right to try to arrest him and bring him into custody. but the fact that the prosecutor said because of dysfunction and distrust in his relationship with the family and the attorneys, that they learned about this, and that they saw some of those images, they've been privy to some of the images, but not all of them, as we did, what does that tell you about the dysfunction, distrust, the breakdown, i don't know what words to use. >> it tells us, john, that this prosecutor is not doing his job. he made a big point of talking about how he was elected by the people of that community, and what his obligations were to the people. i would say he had an obligation to the families, the victims' family members to rise above whatever petty disputes that have existed and to show the family this information, and to tell the family what he was about to tell the entire world, but to come out and hold a press conference, not speak to the family, because of some, you know, ridiculous disputes with the attorneys, to talk about the attorneys not being barred or having access to the courts in that state, knowing that all of that's going to be worked out if it hasn't already been worked out, and there are some
attorneys that are involved in this case that are absolutely barred in that state. so i think it just showed us that he is more concerned about, you know, his public appearance than treating the families of the victim in this case appropriately, and that's quite sad. >> areva martin, captain ron johnson, grateful for your very important insights, we're continuing to stay on top of this. we'll bring that to you when we can. grateful for your insights. >> a very big story in washington today, the house republican leader comes out against a commission to investigate the january 6th insurrection. (vo) ideas exist inside you, electrify you. they grow from our imagination, but they can't be held back. they want to be set free. to make the world more responsible, and even more incredible. ideas start the future, just like that.
in business, it's never just another day. it's the big sale, or the big presentation. the day where everything goes right. or the one where nothing does. with comcast business you get the network that can deliver gig speeds to the most businesses and advanced cybersecurity to protect every device on it— all backed by a dedicated team, 24/7. every day in business is a big day. we'll keep you ready for what's next. comcast business powering possibilities. riders, the lone wolves of the great highway. all they need is a bike and a full tank of gas. their only friend? the open road. i have friends. [ chuckles ]
well, he may have friends, but he rides alone. that's jeremy, right there! we're literally riding together. he gets touchy when you talk about his lack of friends. can you help me out here? no matter why you ride, progressive has you covered with protection starting at $79 a year. well, we're new friends. to be fair. eh, still. as your business changes, the united states postal service is changing with it. with e-commerce that runs at the speed of now. next day and two-day shipping nationwide, and returns right from the doorstep. it's a whole new world out there. let's not keep it waiting.
major power play in washington today that raises a big question, why does kevin mccarthy oppose an independent investigation of the capitol insurrection? the house republican leader, let it be known this morning, he will not support a bipartisan agreement to form a 9/11 style commission. mccarthy gave the green light to the talks to led to the deal for the panel.
yet this morning mccarthy says the commission would be duplicative and counterproductive and he complains its scope is too shortsighted because he says it does not treat other forms of political violence the same as the january 6th attack on the capitol by trump supporters trying to block the electoral college certification. let's get up to capitol hill. the leader authorizes the talks, the talks lead to a deal and the leader says no, thank you. >> he did authorize this deal, but it's not the deal that apparently that he wants, he has been saying, for some weeks now, that he wants this investigation to be broad, to look at not what happened just on january 6th, but also look into the violence that happened last summer during the protests of racial injustice, to look at left wing extremism, not what happened to the extremism we saw on january 6th on the day of the congressional certification in the aftermath of donald trump speaking before that rally that led to the death and violence
here in the capitol. that has been the essence of the dispute between him and nancy pelosi for weeks. he did green light congressman john katko, a republican to get the deal on his behalf, and the deal was reached. katko and benny thompson, a top democrat, reached a bipartisan deal, a ten-member commission that would report what happened by the end of the year, and this report could look into, quote, influencing factors of what happened leading to the insurrection on january 6th and it was reiterated behind closed doors that this could look into other issues, if commissioners wanted to look into protests and extremism, he told me they could absolutely do that but mccarthy is saying no, and a clear indication most republicans in the house would also vote against it as well. this is expected to come before the house on wednesday, and then it will -- expected to pass, even given the democrats have the majority in the house, and there will be some republicans who ultimately back it in the
house, and then the question will be in the united states senate, will there be able to get the necessary votes to overcome a likely republican filibuster, they would need 60 votes to do that, 50 democrats almost certain to vote for it. there are some republicans who are behind it as well, but it's still unclear, john, amid the opposition now from republicans, and even a key senate republican, john, just moments ago, john thune suggesting he was open to it yesterday, and today perhaps he's not, maybe this bill may not get to the president's desk. >> let me ask you a quick question before we go, manu, yeah the republicans don't want to investigate an attack on the united states government on the day they were trying to certify our most sacred thing, an election. kevin mccarthy would be a witness if there was a commission. has he committed maybe he doesn't like and doesn't want it, if he loses the vote and there is a commission, will he testify? >> we've asked him that question several times over the last day. refused to answer and silent
when reporters approached him today leaving a closed room meeting. there would need to be a subpoena by the commission that would have to vote on -- both parties have to agree to it and he would have to agree to testify but john first they need to pass the bill and that's still uncertain if that will happen. >> manu l manu raju live for us. i say he will be a witness because he spoke to then president trump that day and he told several colleagues it was a heated conversation and that trump told him, too bad, kevin, the rioters appear to care more about the election results than you do. he would be a key witness into the mind-set of the then president of the united states as on the day his supporters were attacking the capitol. now republicans say we don't want this commission. i just want you to hear more of the democratic anger, jim mcgovern, democratic chairman of the house rules committee this
morning, saying give me a break, this is an attack on our government, let's get the answers. >> i'm going to tell you, if there's anybody in this chamber who doesn't believe it's important to get to the truth object what happened on the 6th or who wants to make believe that what happened on the 6th didn't happen on the 6th, like a typical tourist day on the capitol, they are not fit to serve in this chamber. and i've had it. >> where do we go? >> well, assuming this does pass the house, i think all eyes are on mitch mcconnell. he has not weighed in on whether or not he will support this at this point. but you mentioned that mccarthy talked to the president. we only know about that because congressman jamie herrera butler talked about it. he hasn't been forthcoming about what happened to him on that day, and just look at his conference. this isn't necessarily that surprising. when you look at some of the things we've seen come out, the
member who said this was a normal tourist visit, other members who have also downplayed and tried to whitewash this attack, they don't know how to talk about it, and they certainly don't want to be talking about it in the future and we should note, this isn't a commission made up of lawmakers. these will be people who are not members of congress. that is how it's designed, equally represented between democrats and republicans, and those democrats or republicans will be picked by the leadership of both parties. so this is something that -- and that was something that pelosi didn't want. so where this goes, we'll have to see but it's pretty clear why they don't want to talk about in th. >> it's pretty clear because there's an election in 2022. this commission would do its work, find the facts like the 9/11 commission did, release them early in an election year, in which the republicans believe they can take back the house and the senate. mitch mcconnell, who i will venture on truth serum would love for this commission to do its work because he would love to purge donald trump from the republican party and he would love the facts to come out. if trump fights the commission there's a big debate in the
republican party and maybe it complicates winning the election. so power comes first, which is why you have from senator roy blunt, the commission will slow us down from some of the things we need to do, with the capitol police and police board, but mike crapo of idaho says if leadership can come together in a bipartisan way i'd look at it seriously. he is correct. they cut the deal before kevin mccarthy spiked it and they have a deal here. chuck grassley, a mcconnell deputy a long time, they're going to have to broaden the inquiry in order to get 60 votes. you can look at antifa and blm if you want, do it separately. this is different. tax on courthouses are bad, violence during protests are bad. this is not equivalency, an attack on the u.s. government inspired by the president of the united states at the time on a day they were trying to certify the election. >> let's look at this idea of broadening the scope, it's about trying to paper over what happened on january 6th.
that was one of the key efforts that were being made on fox news by members of congress to peddle these conspiracy theories that it was antifa who was behind the violence on january 6th. it's the broadening idea is based on a lie. and now you're hearing it more and more from members of congress in both chambers. you've got kevin mccarthy who has been all over the place on this issue. i mean, remember when he said that president trump deserved the responsibility for what happened on january 6th? and then later he tried to walk back what trump told him on the phone. mccarthy is trying to have it both ways. i do think, for mitch mcconnell, this is a true test. the day that -- of the impeachment trial mcconnell gave this impassioned speech about what happened on january 6th. we will see where that passion went. will he be willing to investigate what actually happened? and if he's not, we will know why. it's all because of politics.
>> will he put principle over power. some people are out there encouraged by a certain person and his friends to not believe what they hear from reporters on networks like this one. you said kevin mccarthy changed his story. there are people out there saying oh, no, she's just making that up. oh, no, she's not. >> the president bears responsibility for wednesday's attack on congress by mob rioters. i don't believe he provehicled if you listen to what he said at the rally. >> and so, to manu's point that kevin mccarthy would require a subpoena, probably, to testify. he's the republican leader of the united states congress. he took an oath to the constitution. why wouldn't he volunteer? >> because kevin mccarthy wants to be the speaker of the house. and to your point, there is an election, he is very much considering that as top of mind, and his base and his membership are not -- are not behind this, or don't seem to be uniformly behind this because they don't
want to talk about it. >> he's afraid. he's afraid to -- this is actually -- >> that trump will get mad at him. >> this is what liz cheney's point has been, republicans are afraid of voters, they're afraid of trump and they don't want to cross either of them. they're literally cowering in fear of what might happen to them. when liz cheney talked about that she was saying they were fearing for safety and that's why many republicans voted against it. >> key point, let's suspend belief facts in everything we saw and what we know. if there were some other factor than a pro-trump mob story in the capitol, a commission could find that out. this is john -- investigators would have the discretion to look into protests by black lives matter and antifa violence if they chose to go that route. if he believed mccarthy has to testify, that's up to the commission. the commission would have the power. which witnesses do we want to hear from, which documents do we
want to see? if you brought credible evidence to the commission about antifa or blm on that day or to make it a big enough deal to look somewhere else the commission could do it. what are you afraid of is the question? >> he's afraid of the truth coming out. kevin mccarthy is -- to jackie's point, looking at his own personal political future here. he doesn't care about letting the facts be known about january 6th. republicans want to turn away from this and not look back but i think the rest of the country, those of us on planet earth here, realize this is something that is important, needs to be looked into, and prevented from happening ever again. >> especially -- sorry. >> but the farther away it gets the easier it is for them to walk away because passion, not among some people, but just people move on. people move on to other things. >> it shouldn't -- we shouldn't. and again, this shouldn't be a partisan issue at all. this should be out of respect for the country, the constitution, the capitol
building, and the brave metropolitan capitol police officers today who tried to stop what happened and some of them were hurt, some of them lost their lives and some of them still have damage from it. up next, live to the middle east. president biden backs a cease-fire but the violence in israel and gaza sadly rages on. but your stomach doesn't. that disagreement ends right now. lactaid ice cream is the creamy, real ice cream you love that will never mess with your stomach. lactaid ice cream.
that will never mess there's interest you accrue, and interests you pursue. plans for the long term, and plans for a long weekend. assets you allocate, and ones you hold tight. at thrivent, we believe money is a tool, not a goal. and with the right guidance, you can get the financial clarity you need, and live a life rich in meaning, and gratitude. to learn more, text thrive to 444555, or visit thrivent.com. get exactly what you want on wayfair. hi. last piece. -kelly clarkson? you're welcome. like an updated kitchen in just an afternoon. it's a whole new look. -drinks? from the new kitchen cart? -yes. the bedroom style of your dreams. this room is so you. -i got it all on wayfair. yeah you did, and so did i.
israeli-palestinian cease-fire, but the prime minister says operations are continue "as necessary to support peace and order," and after a night of no rockets, it picked up again this morning. there were fighter jets, sirens, more dead and more wounded. let's get the latest from ben wedeman on the ground in jerusalem. the u.s. president says he wants a cease-fire, but as of now he's not getting his wish. >> reporter: it's not happening and we heard clearly from the israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu that they're going to carry on this operation until their objectives are achieved. to give you an idea where i am, we're in a region that's aflame, gaza, the west bank, but it's here where the spark was first lit for this current round it's all about simple things, four
palestinian families in this neighborhood under the threat of forced eviction, causing friction that's spread and spread and therefore you have the situation that we're living here today. bhiepd me there are israeli border police trying to disperse people taking part in a general strike across the west bank, east jerusalem and parts of israel as well in solidarity with gaza. so even if, by some miracle, a cease-fire is worked out in gaza, you will always have these problems until somehow they're resolved, the problems of the dispossession of palestinians, the problems of the fact that in jerusalem 30% of the population are palestinians who do not have the same civil and political rights as israelis living in this city and therefore hopefully there will be a cease-fire. but that does not mean in any
sense that calm will be restored. it will be, at best, temporary. at best, limited. john? >> ben wedeman, grateful for your on the ground there. we'll keep in touch as this plays out. when we come back, the latest covid numbers, as we go to break, president biden in michigan right now, seeing the ford of the future, pitching green emergency jobs in michigan at an assembly line. but yo'. that disagreement ends right now. lactaid ice cream is the creamy, real ice cream you love that will never mess with your stomach. lactaid ice cream. new projects means new project managers. that will never mess wyou need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. the moment you sponsor a job on indeed you get a short list of quality candidates from our resume database. claim your seventy five dollar credit, when you post your first job at indeed.com/home. priceline works with top hotels, to save you up to 60%. these are all great.
60% of those 18 and older have had at least their first dose of the covid vaccine, and other numbers, the trend lines are improving and the red line tells you that. you see this is the horrific winter peak, 300,000 cases a day, way back in may of 2020, 22,000 cases a day, initial surge, coming across the flat line before we went up in the summer. 22,000 then, 28,634 new infections yesterday. we're starting to push this down below 30,000. averaging 32,000 right now, 32,000 now covid infections a day, the goal is to keep pushing that down. obviously we're way down from where we were in january. this is never a good news chart, any deaths from covid is sadness but this number is starting to come down as well. you watch the seven-day average, the blue line coming down, 392 of our fellow americans dying from covid, every one of those deaths a tragedy, the numbers are down, we're averaging 507 still a day, keep pushing those numbers down. this, 15 states yesterday
reported no covid deaths. let's all pray that we can fill in this map with more states saying that in the days and weeks ahead. no covid deaths yesterday in 15 of the 50 states. where are we in the vaccine rollout? more than 37% of the population is now fully vaccinated. of the population over 12 years old, 44% fully vaccinated. in the most vulnerable, those over 65 at 73% fully vaccinated, the numbers are going up every day, but not as fast as the public health experts would hope. the average is 1.8 million doses per day, where we are below 2 million, we are above 3 million for a little stretch in the late april sp it's come down steadily since, this is not a supply issue, there's plenty of supply out there, andy slavitt one of the white house covid coordinators, a message to young people, now that you're eligible, you want your life back, get the shot. >> my message to young people, of course, is simple, get vaccinated. whether you're a graduate, still in high school, in college, just
out or more than a little bit out, it's the most important thing you can do right now, covid cases are down in all 50 states. we are winning the war on the virus. and we need you to help us finish the job. >> let's get some important insights from william moss, dr. william moss, the executive director of the international access center at john hopkins bloomberg center of public health. thank you for your time today. you know these numbers better than i do, it's not a supply issue anymore, when you hear mr. slavitt andhorse at the white house team trying to find any way they can, when you're eligible, please go get one, what's the best message for those who might still be hesitant? >> yes, john, thank you for having me, and there are still a number of challenges, exactly as you said wooerks in a good position, the case numbers are coming down, we're about where we were in september, vaccination numbers continue to climb, i think the messages need
to be to those who are still hesitant that we've learned a lot about this -- these vaccines, and they're very safe and very effective. and we need to have a number of messengers get this message out. we need to be understanding what people's concerns are, some people have concerns about safety, some people don't believe in the threat of covid-19. we need to understand what the concerns are and address those, yes. >> forgive me for interrupting, sir, a glitch in the signal. as more adults get vaccinated we're seeing a trend of more cases in young children. the latest numbers here, 49,000 last week of cases among children, that's 24% of the new cases reported. but it's the lowest number of child covid cases since october. help me with the math here, how much of that is younger people getting vaccinated or is it a larger issue, more adults being
vaccinated, so less threat of exposure? >> exactly right, john, i think this is largely being driven by more adults being vaccinated, so we're seeing a higher proportion of children, you know, making up all the cases in the united states. overall the case numbers are down, case numbers in children are down, but children are making up, now, almost a quarter of all their reported cases in the united states. throughout earlier in the pandemic, maybe children made up about 10 to 15%. very early in the pandemic, less than 5%. so i think what we're seeing are fewer cases in adults, and thus children are making up a higher proportion. >> i'm going to guess that you're getting asked this question, both in a professional setting and from personal friends who know your area of expertise, and that is what do i do now that the cdc has changed its guidelines for masking, dropping the mask requirement, especially for the vaccinated in most circumstances, i want you to listen to dr. anthony fauci walking through the confusion a
little bit. >> there are some establishments who are saying, well, i'm going to have people coming into my establishments, in my store, what have you, some will be vaccinated and some are not, i'm not going to know the difference. it's reasonable and understandable for the owner of that establishment to say, you know, we're going to keep the mask mandate up, and that's what we're seeing. and i think that's causing the confusion. >> how do you view, given your expertise, the dos and don'ts of masking at this moment? >> yes, and i realize, john, that the cdc was in a difficult position, and, you know, came out with these new guidelines, relaxing the mask mandate for those who are fully vaccinated, again, these are cdc guidelines. i think they could have done better in having a more transparent process on the decision-making, giving us a heads up so individuals as well as businesses could have been prepared for that, recognizing that not all situations are equal. but i think as tony fauci said,
you know, people are going to have to make individual decisions and businesses will make individual decisions. >> grateful for your time and insights today, we'll continue the conversation and grateful for your time with us this hour, we'll see you back here this time tomorrow. ana cabrera picks up our coverage on a busy news day right now. ♪ hello, and thanks for joining us, i'm ana cabrera in new york and we begin in elizabeth city, north carolina where district attorney andrew womble who says sheriff's deputies were justified in the shooting of andrew brown jr. last month. the officers involved won't be charged. he says deadly force was necessary and that brown ignored their commands. >> the deputies who fired the fatal shots perceived an actual apparent threat, evaluated in seconds, decided, and acted.